Talk:Acupuncture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


——————————————— ACUPUNCTURE ARTICLE TALK PAGE ———————————————

Please, add new entries to the bottom and don't forget to sign your name by typing four tildes: ~~~~.
Please, no spam.

Contents

[edit] External link citing studies

Since someone removed the page I added--a collection of published scientific articles about the medical uses of acupuncture--I added it back. Although the page is within a larger site with commercial purposes, no products are listed for sale on this page, so it similar to other organizations in this section which take money. Since the section is clearly marked advocate sites, readers are alerted to the potential for bias. moreover, the fact that these are full-length scientific articles published in reputable journals adds distinct value to readers. They can read the articles and judge the research for themselves.--Azzazz

[edit] Threshold for inclusion of individual studies?

Ryanjo recently added a summary of a German study on knee osteoarthritis[1]. It was added to the "Evidence-based medicine" section, but since EBM by definition is concerned with reviews and not individual studies, I thought it best to move the study to a separate, new section entitled "examples of controlled studies"[2]. However, hundreds of studies exist and this could quickly get both overpopulated and POV-ish as some editors will inevitably attempt to cram in as many positive or negative studies as they can, depending on their POV. Suggestions on how to handle this issue? inclusion is good, but I'm not sure what the criteria should be for individual studies. It could get pretty wild. I've tended to believe it's best to quote significant groups commenting on research (NIH, AMA), along with EBM reviews. So maybe better to delete it, even though I prefer to err on the inclusionist side, and continue to keep EBM updated, since EBM reviewers will inevitably take into account this and other studies systematically. Thoughts? reagrds, Jim Butler(talk) 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer either, but I'll give you my thoughts to see if combined with yours they are strong enough to throw light into dark corners.
It is the quality of the trials and the quality of the reviews that are important, rather than whether they are positive or negative.
It is newspaper hacks that go for giving both sides 'equal ink' rather than explaining the quality of each argument - not expected in an encyclopaedia.
Further: there is a misconception in some folks, that because 'scientific scepticism' seems to 'refute' all the time that this is how scientists works. Research is more of a 'hard slog' to 'confirm' that something agrees with what has already been established (other facts) and then see if another labs agree or fails to agree. If they disagree, then modify to make good any weakness in the protocol that peer review found wanting and perform a new trial. Bad hypotheses -just fad away in the process. They don't usually get to the point of being refuted. (Gosh!.. Don't I make it sound simple!)
So, I would look out for (i) individual studies (pos & neg; strong and week) that have been reviewed by other research peers. (ii) For reviews of several trials (using tunnel analysis etc) look again at the credentials of the reviewers. In other words don't burden yourself with trying to judge trials which is really the job for the individuals with the relevant experience who are more familiar with the mathematical and other faux pas which can come about in science.
Therefore: I would strongly go for asking that only peer reviewed research get listed.
Perhaps a box at the top of the talk page can state this? Perhaps also have a box on the talk page for new research releases that sound promising but which has not yet been properly reviewed (e.g.. The Sykes BBC trials)
The next problem is that 'any' medical treatment were the outcomes will differ widely from person to person (due to when symptoms are due to multiple possibilities of different gene expression) is not best suited to this form of medical trials, be it acupuncture or psychiatric medication etc. but it's all there is (clarification: until modern genetics came alone it was heresy to suggest the same set of signs and symptoms may have different underling causes -because it was / is the signs and symptoms that are used to confirm the disease.) So, it is not surprising perhaps -with the benefit of hindsight- that this method has only shown 'promising' positive results in pain control -suggesting that it is a 'specific' set of genes that have their expression changed in the CNS (by acupuncture) and that this 'set' is the same for 'most' individuals. Therefore, it may be worth explaining the limitations of this type of approach to determine existence -or otherwise- benefit of treatment. The general reader may not appreciate where the strengths and weaknesses of medical trials lay. It needs to be spelt out for them. Not because their stupid but because most humans have areas of high specialisation and understanding and other areas which they find -just bore them silly. Might also be worth asking a child: read this, then tell me: what else would you like the article to tell you.
They wont have any preconceived ideas to call upon to fill in for any short comings in the text, so if bits don't make sense to them they will tell you.--Aspro 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective on this, Aspro, and sorry about the slowish reply. Certainly agree that quality of studies ought to be the criterion as opposed to outcome. I agree that it could be useful to discuss some individual studies that well-credentialed reviewers have cited, or that are of comparable quality (e.g. above-mentioned knee osteoarthritis study, which Cochrane or some reviewer should get around to soon). On the issue of individual variation, I agree this is relevant, but wouldn't sufficiently large and randomized populations account for this factor? (Assuming that the studies are adequately controlled, which is non-trivial when studying any procedure as opposed to a pill....) Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I would like to think that sufficiently large cohort would pull out the signal (if any) from the noise, I expect that that such a trial would be prohibitively too expensive to perform.
Also, I think it is using the wrong approach.
To call upon an analogy:
Watching children messing around in dinghies, one observers how quickly they learn to judge just how far off the centre line the Center of Buoyancy can go before capsizing (and colder the water the quicker they seem to acquire the skill). They do this without recourse to: pencils, paper, calculator or text book on naval architecture. To load a cargo ship (well) by calculation takes a lot of time (or so I was once informed). Yet, a child can instinctively move themselves or a mass or many masses to a position to keep his/her boat in the best of trim. Therefore, with so many possible variables to unbalance on organism it would take a very large cohort for each physical and mental complaint that is compared against orthodox treatments.
(When I first started work, digital computers where too slow to do mathematical modelling so boffins often used analogue computers. Therefore, I suppose because of my background: when I read the traditional theory of acupuncture etc., I do not see 'a theory' at all but possibly a 'narrative' built up of observations - I'm not claiming that it is- but just possibly - a narrative- formed from many trials and errors - that helps a dynamic system to regain balance. Maybe a 'prescience' is a better name for it than 'theory'. Also, for an 'armchair philosopher' not to be able to probe the shadows beyond this point is to demonstration enough to me: that he or she has reached their personal level of incompetence. See: the Peter Principle) As a further aside: Today though, with faster computers and a large body of software know-how to call upon, it may be time for pursuing a 'systems approach' to medicine.
It is interesting to note that when I looked up the work on this approach to managing diabetes, I see that it was the idea of Complementary and Integrative Medical Therapies department of Harvard Medical School. However, the idea is now 'old hat' in some of the sciences such as engineering.
Shucks...! Another aside. My college (who has been looking over my shoulder) has just pointed out that the theory of naval architecture is absolutely and unequivocally pseudoscience !!! His reason: you can not 'see' a ships center of buoyancy nor X-ray it! Nor whip out a tape and measure the Metacentric height. Nor cut out the center of gravity and put it on a set of scales and weigh it. Yet all these things are supposed to be influence by all the other parts of the ship and yet he (nor I -now I come to think about it) have ever seen any lines or ropes -or anything at all- that this force of buoyancy can travel along. Think we had all better stick to 'firm' dry land from now on... Cheers --Aspro 10:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Good & interesting stuff Aspro... I knew someone who studied naval architecture and that is a very good analogy on self-regulation. I certainly don't mind such comparisons either. Yes, speculation and metaphor do not automatically a pseudoscience make. And pointing out that there's stuff we don't know about the human organism isn't mere appeal to ignorance. IME, acupuncture is pretty amazing at helping people "reset their course" and reduce stress. There are studies that back this up, but it's hard to measure general well-being as opposed to particular symptoms and signs, or absence thereof. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits by User:Acupuncturist

Hello Acupuncturist! As a fellow L.Ac., I appreciate your contributions and perspective here. In changing your edits, I'm not saying that they aren't the "truth" as you suggested in your edit summary, but I am urging that we attend to WP guidelines which recognize multiple "truths" about topics. Please understand that the page in its current form represents consensus carefully developed over time among multiple editors, and significant changes (like in the lead section) should be discussed here first. You are adding some good points that I attempted to work into the article, although some do need citation (per WP:V), and some seem a bit too "pro-acupuncture" in tone (see WP:NPOV). Not everything needs to be in the lead section. In a couple of cases, and please don't take offense, I felt that the same basic idea was more clearly or concisely conveyed in the original text. Look forward to your thoughts, and welcome to Wikipedia! best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a computer user. Mostly I am a healer. After one has heard it from literally hundreds of people I think one has earned the right to the title. I think that there are hired "experts" out there who are gainfully engaged in distorting the truth about this nonpatented not elitist form of medicine. It seems easier to establish credibility with one source citing multiple studies aginst acupuncture. It is grossly unfair that the Gerac study did not appear. Does a study have to be performed by disinterested doctors to be considered legit on this site... My uncle was in one of these so-called studies and the doc was very rude, always used the same points never asked any questions of him and whaddya know after a couple of treatments he didnt feel any different. Acupuncture is a medical art, something which corporate medicine can do without, as it interferes with the bottom line.
By the way my uncle, years later got a treatment for 2 week old, bent- over back pain that went away after one time with me. He said the experience was completely different.
COMMON ADVERSE EVENTS??? are you guys crazy? Who does your acupuncture a gorilla? (the preceding unsigned comment was left by User:Acupuncturist) 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Acupuncturist. It's always good to have the contributions of practicing acupunturists. Several others have contributed here as well, including Piekarnia (who is missed) and myself. An important thing you'll find on WP is that editors of all backgrounds follow the basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:OR. Whether you're an experienced computer user or not, you'll find those are good ones to review.
Some comments:
  • I agree with you about the importance of bedside manner and your caveats about study design. NIH mentions a bit of the latter.
  • Thanks for adding the material on tongue diagnosis; I expanded the diagnosis subsection of Traditional Theory in line with Cheng.
  • In your editing, please be careful of punctuation and that you don't cut off other references (scroll down to LIne 218, [here].)
  • "Common, minor adverse events" is what the article says. Let me capitalize MINOR there to emphasize that.  :-) Ernst is pretty accurate about occasional bleeding, etc.
  • "Evidence-based medicine" refers specifically to reviews according to particular protocols. The research on efficacy and observable effects that you added is fine; I just moved it to other sections. Gerac.de is in German; English Wikipedia strongly prefers English-language subjects.
  • Excellent references on safety; thank you!
  • Finally, I've removed this for now: it doesn't have anything to do with acupuncture, but could be included in another article.
"Antibiotic overuse leads to resistant super-bacteria. 'The prevalence of antibiotic -resistant bacteria in Taiwan is due to the heavy use of antimicrobial agents in both animal husbandry and clinical practice over the past decades'" Int J Antimicrob Agents 2001 Sep.
OK, thanks! best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't had the time to read how to work this stuff correctly, I work an hour from my clinic and currently work long hours to maintain a cash based practice. gerac used to have an English tranlation. the Acupuncture Today article is archived at www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2002/jul/07gerac.html. Also Brian Carter has a great site for Acupuncture resarch archives at www.pulsemed.org. I'm determined to make it home before 10 tonight. peace. acup.. 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I know what GERAC refers to now and had just forgotten the name. Good stuff; I'll add the Acu Today link. I wonder what type of sham acupuncture they used? all the best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Electroacupuncture according to Voll

No vote on merge; it's much more far-out than plain-vanilla acupuncture, plus the article is already too long and is ripe to have stuff spun off (some candidates that come to mind are meridian theory, TCM diagnostics and aspects of scientific studies). Electroacupuncture according to Voll would probably be better merged with bioresonance therapy or some related thing. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No also.- This page is already too long and more sub-pages are needed for this topic. Thanks for suggesting changes in the discussion page! --Travisthurston 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No on merging. In fact, it should be splitted because it is way too long and full of peripheral issues. It is not concise enough. I suggest that "acupuncturist" should not be merged either, and revert it back to its own entry. Each keyword should stand on its own, otherwise it loses its focus to the reader. 4 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed - most of the articles on wikipedia would be better if there were less redirections and more sub-articles for topics. I also agree with the suggestion that acupuncturist have its own entry. --Travisthurston 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision is needed to split and trim out political and non-essential opinions of the efficacy of acupuncture

It deviated from the spirit and guidelines of what Wikipedia is WP:5P and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. It did not subscribe to principles of Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Specifically, it should not be a "Critical Review" nor "Opinions of Current Affairs."

loserThe opinions and skepticisms should be moved to Discussion or other relevant places. It distracts from describing what acupuncture is. It doesn't even describe what acupuncture does or how it works!


Specific Recommendations for Revision:

  • Acupuncture#Legal_and_political_status section should belong to a separate entry for acupuncturist because it falls into the category of the "practice of acupucture," not the description of what acupuncture is or is not!
  • A separate entry of acupuncturist should be restored from the previous stand-alone keyword, and should not be merged or redirected. (For instance, medicine and medical doctors (physicianas) are totally different things, they should not be lumped together, so are acupuncture and acupuncturists.)



  • The entire section on Acupuncture#Scientific_research did not subscribe to the principles of Neutral Point of View. It is about "Opinions of Current Affairs" as seen from the viewpoint of the United States (very US-centric). Just because it is describing evidence-based research according to the Western approach, it does not mean that it is not "evidence-based" as defined by the Oriental approach where it is time-tested for thousands of years.
    • The entire section should be moved to the Discussion or a link because it is about "Opinions on Current Affairs" which becomes obsolete when more studies are concluded.
  • The section is so biased that it is not even a Western viewpoint, nor representative of the view from other English-speaking countries. If you read any of the other entries of acupuncture in other languages in wikipedia, including other Western European language's entries, none of them have this US-centric viewpoint.
    • (To make a point for the discussion, FDA approval does not mean a treatment/drug is necessarily effective; it just means that it is sanctioned by the US officials, a very country-dependent seal of approval. Just because a treatment or a drug is not approved by FDA, it doesn't mean it is not effective, because they can be approved by other countries such as Europe or Canada long before it is approved in the US. Just because specific studies were not conducted in the US until recently, it does not mean that scientific research on acupuncture were not done elsewhere. There is a volume of scientific literature published in Chinese and Western European countries, which are totally discounted in the section. US is not the only authority in scientific research. That's why the entire section is not Neutral Point of View.]
  • The section has left out the wealth of knowledge from the oriental sources (where acupuncture has been practiced for thousands of years), which shows how biased it is. Just because the US is a new-comer in the field, it does not mean nothing is known about it, nor is it not researched scientifically elsewhere. For those skeptics, it just shows their naivety. They do have every rights to doubt and question the effectiveness, but that does not belong here in a wikipedia entry.
    • The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in NIH was only created 10 years ago in the US to study alternative medicine such as oriental medicine, showing how immature the US is in this field of medicine. Nonetheless, the US scientific community is finally open to see what is true out there other than the traditional medical practices. But traditional medical practice as defined by the West is new to the East, and vice versa, the traditional medical practice as defined by the East is new to the West. So, it's just because it is new to the West, it does not mean it is not effective or valid medical practice. That's why it is not neutral, and merely a viewpoint.


  • The entire section on Acupuncture#Safety_and_risks is so negative that it is all about harmful effects, there is nothing positive nor mentioning any safe or beneficial effects. It is so biased that is only one-sided, no balance at all. It violates Neutral Point of View guidelines.
  • The section on Acupuncture#Risks_from_omitting_orthodox_medical_care is entirely an opinion of a belief system subscribed by some doctors, but not true for all western doctors. It is extremely biased and negative, violating the Neutral Point of View principle of Wikipedia. It should be deleted.


In sum, the majority of description is biased, narrow-minded, one-side, US-centric, anti-acupuncture and politically motivated. It is totally not neutral. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Coladie 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Coladie. Thanks for your recent edits on WHO standard points and NCCAM. (Note that the "controversial" bit about points was from the NIH report.) On your objections about bias, I have to disagree. The article is well-sourced. Ephemeral "current affairs" are not the same as "best scientific evidence available today", and the article does and should cover the latter. As research changes, we update the article, but we shouldn't be silent about it and just have some puff about how great it's been in Asia for thousands of years, and pretend that suffices. Research on acu is ongoing, isn't being done just by people wanting to disprove acu, and deserves coverage. Also, evidence-based medicine has a specific meaning; check it out.
On US- and Western-centric bias, that's an inevitable problem with English WP; the solution is to find and add more verifiable material about acu in other countries. That would be welcome. The article does say acu has been used in the East for centuries. However, accumulated clinical experience, while important to mention, isn't the same as controlled research. We should note both.
There is nothing misleading about "Safety and Risks", as it says very clearly that minor bleeding or bruising are "common, minor" adverse events, which is how the study cited describes them. "Risks from omitting orthodix medical care" is indeed Western med POV, but it's a significant POV, and should be included (and it's also a valid point, imo: American L.Ac.'s aren't adequately trained to recognize more than cursory signs of biomedical disease, and ought to make sure patients have been evaluated by doctors as well. I say this as an L.Ac. myself.)
So I'd strongly urge against deleting material here. The article reflects a great deal of give-and-take between acupuncturists and skeptics and I think does a good job of conveying facts about various opinions. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim, let's assume a general neutral standpoint for a second, in the spirit of Wikipedia, an article entry should describe what the keyword is to inform the reader to gain more knowledge of the term described. If you re-read the article as a 3rd person, you will notice that 2/3 of this particular article is about political issues rather than acupuncture per se.
Yes, although it appears it described some scientific references, nonetheless is political in the sense that it subscribes to a party-line, in this case, the party-line of a US-based viewpoint. I don't believe it is even a Western-bais because many other Western countries do not subscribe to the same viewpoint. That is my point.
Yes, I know what evidence-based medicine is, but that does not mean it is the only approach you can prove things scientifically. The overwhelming majority of the scientific research results are actually based on laboratory-controlled experiments done on laboratory animals before any clinical trials. Thus, large-controlled clinical trials of double-blinded experiments are not the only way to prove the efficacy of a drug or treatment. It is merely one of many scientific research approaches. To say that it is the only metric to measure the effectiveness of a treatment is too one-sided and not neutral. That's why when the wealth of knowledge based on other scientific studies on acupuncture are either ignored or discounted, it gives the readers the impression that all the rest of scientific studies are not scientific or proven. That is just not objective.
Many of those peripheral issues as a skeptics or warnings can be condensed, addressed as a footnote or a link to the discussion. It shouldn't take up 2/3 of the article.
As I said before, unorthodox is totally relative. What is unorthodox in the West is traditional in the East, and vice versa. Who is right is a matter of opinion. As such, it is a non-neutral viewpoint that failed the WP:NOT guideline test. I know someone has spent some time on writing it, but they are better belong to the external reference, not part of the description of the term itself.
I would raise the same objection to other articles that are non-neutral, so I'm not against this article per se. I understand the intent was noble to warn people, but there is a place for it as a footnote or a link. In other words, if you find someone spends 2/3 of the article on questioning the effectiveness of surgery because it is not scientific and there are no evidence-based research done on double-blinded clinical trials for surgery, and all those side-effects of cutting up people, leaving people bleeding, and worst yet, some surgeons forgot and left scissors inside the patient's body, do you think it is objective?
By the same token, surgery had not gone through any of the evidence-based medicine clinical trials just as much as acupuncture, does it mean surgery is non-scientific, unproven or ineffective technique for treatment? Do you not accept the time-tested evidence of real-world patient results as evidence? Would you enter this skeptism into the Wikipedia term "surgery" to question the effectiveness and risks of surgery the same way? I'm not defending the East here, just a point for argument of what belongs in a Wikipedia term and what shouldn't be. peace Coladie 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, NIH is very biased. It is an arm of the government, as such, it is always political. It is very "politically-correct" in all its public statements and public reports. That's why it is so controversial. They may try to be neutral, but that is not the reality. NIH used to be much more independent as a scientific agency, but not anymore. If you read any of their public statements in their websites, they always put forth what public wants to hear rather than what the true scientific facts are. I wouldn't be surprised to see them endorsing faith-healing as a legit treatment too, given that this administration has funded so many faith-based initiatives already. But should this be included as part of Wikipedia term too, certainly not. Coladie 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coladie. You're making some unwarranted assumptions about what the article says and what I think. The article doesn't say EBM is the only way to know whether something is effective, but it does accurately say that consensus among scientists is that EBM is the way to go. The article also raises caveats about blinding procedures. Acupuncture is a large topic, so naturally a range of social issues are going to be covered, including licensure. I agree that spinning off acupuncturist, and covering licensing issues there, could be a good approach.
Again, there's a lot of material here that represents the cumulative efforts of a number of editors, so I suggest we take this section by section. Please select one section, find some verifiable sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS and then let's discuss ways to edit accordingly. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Coaldie, I have to agree with Jim here (makes a nice change). You appear to be unlcear about the difference between evidence and anecdote. It is important that you do some research to become familiar with it. What people "report" may not be what is happening. The "thousands of years" argument is not strong - for thousand of years people said the earth was flat and that humans couldn't fly. Also the placebo is a very powerful and little understood effect. Good luck with your research. Mccready 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Coladie you make so much sense here that I just want to thank you for taking the time to try to clear up this article. If it stays too opinionated I am going to suggest mobilization of patients and students as "editors". If all of the meticulous scientific research on acup. carried out by TENS OF THOUSANDS over the centuries, (all with just as much nobility of cause as the Quackwash folks), were to become the sole priority of English language tranlators today we could NOT EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE ARTICLES WRITTEN EVERY DAY ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF ACUPUNCTURE,. As a matter of fact the Russians,Chisese and Japanes don't even waste time trying to "prove it works" anymore, instead opting for research on curing paralysis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease and finding a blood test to assist in point selection.Acupuncturist 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Acupuncturist

Thank you Acupuncturist. It's good to see the diversity of opinion. But let's not forget about objectivity and neutrality. Distant yourself from it for a second and really see what I tried to say:

  • Let's use another article entry to illustrate what a clean Wikipedia entry should be:
  • Surgery is a good example. It is what a good Wikipedia article because it is neutral, clean, concise and informative without muddling with any politics or opinions or biases.
  • The surgery topic is very similar to acupuncture.
    • It has history dated back a couple thousands years similar to acupuncture.
    • Both originated from the Orient and practiced in the East before the West picked it up.
    • Both are time-tested in the field.
    • Both had been studied and research in the laboratory using well-controlled scientific methods.
    • But both did not go through any of the double-blinded placebo studies. (Evidence-based medicine is a very misleading term to imply that all other scientific methods are not based on evidence, so I avoid using such a misleading term.)
    • Yet why isn't there any of these controversal political opinions about surgery?
    • Why do you think surgery is evidence-based whereas acupuncture is not?
    • How is surgery "proven" while acupuncture isn't?

What I suggested was reorganize it and condense it and use footnotes/external links to make the same point without losing any of the content so it remains clean without cluttering. You have to see it from the point of view of the reader to keep things simple, not as an author to push any viewpoint. That is objectivity and neutrality.

Acupuncture is definitely evidence-based in that there are volumes of published scientific laboratory and field research studies. Lab and field research is the core in scientific and medical research. These are all evidence-based, i.e., based on factual, objective, verifiable scientific research, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Double-blinded placebo studies are only a small part of the bigger scientific research methodologies. It is misleading to say that it is the only way to prove the effectiveness of any treatment, and all the other research are not evidence-based or scientific.

I can list all the scientific literature references here, but Wikipedia is not the place to list point-counterpoints arguments, and it would escalate into a battleground, which is not my intent.

My point is: keep it simple and concise (as in the surgery example) for the sake of the readers. The controversies can be cited as external references or footnotes. That is adhering to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. It is easy to get emotional after vesting on a project, but an objective person would welcome critics and doesn't mind being edited for the bigger good. Wikipedia isn't own by one person, it is for everyone! Coladie 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm unable to edit much till next week, but a quickie: Since WP is for everyone, all verified, significant POV's are included. That doesn't mean deleting (or relegating to footnotes) material that some readers believe is controversial. Per WP:NPOV:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
peace, Jim Butler(talk) 03:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Good that we strike a balance. I think part of the controversy lies in mixing the specific treatments that acupuncture are effective (i.e., "indications,"a pharmacological term to mean what the medicine is for) with those that were never intended for acupuncture (i.e., "contraindications," a pharmacological term to mean what the medicine is not indicated/intended for).
Just like surgery, it is not a cure-all treatment because there are diseases that are inoperable. By the same token, acupuncture is not cure-all for everything, and there are ailments that are inacupuncturable. Neutrality is separating out the facts from myths, and not throw the baby out with the bath water by discounting the entire acupuncture practice wholesale. Coladie 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coladie, am back but busy, so please forgive my brevity. No disagreement with what you say just above, and in fact I strongly agree with your second paragraph. I do understand the problem of "how to frame acupuncture", and I guess the best we can do is talk about different paradigms and say when we are speaking from them, if that makes sense.
Very nice work on scientific theories on acupuncture! Hope you don't mind that I moved it to be beside sci research section; no POV implications, just flow. Some of the stubs sound a little unusual and you may get flack from some editors, but as long as verifiable sources can be found, no problemo. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality review?

I saw a while back now that you were asking for a neutrality check, and so I did some source checking on this; hope you find it useful. I think that this would be a better article if it were more concise and better referenced. Length without close referencing offers many opportunities for unconscious POV. The following are specific examples of problems I came across

1. Claim in WP. "However, there is no evidence that those tattoos were used as acupuncture points or if they were just decorative in nature".

Comment: This statement is referenced to a Lancet article, and seems to be wrong. The Lancet says: "A treatment modality similar to acupuncture thus appears to have been in use long before its previously known period of use in the medical tradition of ancient China. This raises the possibility of acupuncture having originated in the Eurasian continent at least 2000 years earlier than previously recognised."

2. Claim in WP "Acupuncture has been used to treat a number of conditions ...Classically, "in clinical practice, acupuncture treatment is typically highly-individualized and based on philosophical constructs, and subjective and intuitive impressions" and not on controlled scientific research."

Comment The quote is given correctly, but is not really representative of the conclusions of the paper, which state "Despite their different foundations and weighing of information, TCM and EBM are not mutually exclusive. Both share a commitment to providing the best possible treatment for patients based on individual experience and the best available external evidence. Single-case experimental design studies, expanded into large-scale RCTs if they merit allocation of substantial resources, may be a valuable tool for clinical investigation as well as a source of credible evidence supporting the practice of conscientious acupuncture practitioners."

3. WP In the section on critics: "Philosopher Robert Todd Carroll deemed acupuncture a pseudoscience because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims".[7]...

Comment Carroll teaches at a community college, and the source is not peer reviewed, so the threshold for notability as a critic seems low.

The Sampson/Bayerstein quote. This simply recounts the opinions of a few unnamed Chinese scientists. It would be better to recount the opinions/conclusions of the authors themselves. e.g. "It seems that the practice of TCM and the concepts of internal and external Qi place China in a dilemma. Advancement of these ideas, especially overseas, increases China's prestige and is a matter of cultural pride. Yet the inherent mysticism and magical thinking in these notions are an embarrassment to the Marxist rationalism of the government and to the scientific community as a whole."

Neither Barrett’s comments nor Kaptchuk’s either seem particularly critical or informative. Are there really no more notable critics who say more pithy things? I suspect that there are. (see Domar AD. Acupuncture and infertility: we need to stick to good science. Fertil Steril. 2006 May;85(5):1359-61)

WP claim "According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture: Despite considerable efforts to understand the anatomy and physiology of the "acupuncture points", the definition and characterization of these points remains controversial. Even more elusive is the basis of some of the key traditional Eastern medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and the five phases theory, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."

Comment It is not clear that this is a criticism at all, although it is cited as though it were. The same NIH statement concludes: "Findings from basic research have begun to elucidate the mechanisms of action of acupuncture, including the release of opioids and other peptides in the central nervous system and the periphery and changes in neuroendocrine function. Although much needs to be accomplished, the emergence of plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic effects of acupuncture is encouraging." In context, WP appears to be mis-citing the NIH statement to promote a POV

Later in the WP article, is this assertion "The statement was not a policy statement of the NIH but rather the assessment of a panel whose impartiality has been questioned by members of the The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF)."

Comment This seems to equate the authority of NIH with that of NCAHF, and does so having already quoted the same NIH statement without reservation for an apparently critical comment. The NCAHF does not have the same standing as NIH.

5. WP claim on scientific research into efficacy "For the following conditions, the Cochrane Collaboration concluded there is insufficient evidence that acupuncture is beneficial, often because of the paucity and poor quality of the research and that further research would be needed to support claims for efficacy":(and gave a list of conditions).

Comment. An editorial in the British Medical Journal in 2006 (BMJ 2006;333:611-612) said, of the same evidence base,: "The Cochrane review found evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials that acupuncture reduces pain in the short and intermediate term compared with sham (placebo) acupuncture.11 This implies that treatment has real effects over and above a placebo response."

6. WP claim on Risks "Some western doctors believe that receiving any form of alternative medical care without also receiving orthodox western medical care is inherently risky, since undiagnosed disease may go untreated and could worsen."

Comment This has no reference attached. However, in the BMJ, same editorial as above: "The new research in this week's BMJ means that acupuncture for persistent lower back pain has been clinically researched more thoroughly than many orthodox medical treatments. Healthcare decision makers should consider acupuncture as an adjunct to usual care for patients with persistent low back pain or migraine: the best evidence shows that the associated health gain represents good value."

Overall comments The section on legal and political status seems to be long for the purpose simply of validating the claim that acupuncture is carefully regulated part of the health systems of many countries, and involves professional training and licensure. These are important points, but not at this length. The section on Scientific theories is under development so I wouldn’t want to be critical at this stage, but

WP claim "Many scientific theories have been proposed to address the physiological mechanisms of action of acupuncture. To date, more than 10,000 scientific research studies have been published...."

Comment .... but this is a belied by assertions that there hasn’t been enough research and much more is needed. In fact in the NIH literature base, most are tests of efficacy or case reports, not studies of mechanism etc, and there have been few studies in mainstream science journals.

This section seems overlong and weak in its sources. I suggest focussing on a) the Gate Theory and b) endogenous opioids as a framework of explanation that is well supported and in high regard. There is a danger that writing at length on weakly supported theories diverts attention from the strong ones, and a danger that with length comes errors or confusions. Perhaps some of the other theoretical discussions should be hived off into specialist articles?

Gleng 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, I'm glad you posted this. I've now looked them over and generally agree. Will have a go at implementing them soon. Jim Butler(talk) 06:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Update: Have put in lots of work tonight on other aspects of the article, but haven't forgotten the above. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue #1 (Otzi in Lancet) fixed.Jim Butler(talk) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by User 206.57.90.87

Hi 206.57.90.87. I see some NPOV and VER problems with your recent addition and breaking off of a new section called "Efficacy of acupuncture"[3]. You include unsourced generalizations ("To date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo") and assert sig POV's about efficacy instead of presenting them. Please note also that there already exists a section entitled Acupuncture#Scientific_research_into_efficacy and material on efficacy should go there alongside the other sig POV's presented. Material already in that section, and stuff cited just above in talk from Gleng, clearly show that there is debate about efficacy among scientists.

I also see you deleted quite a bit of material, and I'm not sure why, though it may not be notable or sufficiently V RS.

What I've done is move your additions pending further discussion. Thanks and best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. ChrisDas (are you 206.57.90.87 creating a screen name? thanks if so) -- let's try and keep close to V Rs's and avoid OR, and per Wikiquette discuss here on talk, not in the article's body[4]. We need to hammer out consensus here and I agree with Pursey's reverting[5]. Cochrane is above reproach and clearly shows legit sci POV that acu is efficacious. So let's do the NPOV thing and cover all views, not assert a single one. best, Jim Butler(talk) 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
PPS - ChrisDas, also please read Help:Edit summary and WP:DR and try to leave helpful, substantive edit summaries, thanks, it really helps. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material added by User 206.57.90.87 on efficacy (includes expansion of existing stuff in lead)

The World Health Organization (WHO), the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institute of Health (NIH), the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) and various government reports have studied and commented on the efficacy of acupuncture. Whether acupuncture is efficacious or a placebo has been the subject of ongoing scientific research. Scientists have conducted reviews of existing clinical trials according to the protocols of evidence-based medicine; some have found efficacy for headache, low back pain and nausea, but for most conditions have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not acupuncture is effective. There is no evidence that the needles have any affect on the pathogenesis of viruses and microorganisms, or on human physiology, with the exception of the neurological pathways associated with the nerve cells that were stimulated by them. Thus, the most promising clinical application of acupuncture is in the area of pain control.

Empirical data on acupuncture, gathered through scientific experiment and analysis, focuses on biochemical and psychological mechanisms because the existence of "qi "and the balance of "yin" and "yang" (described below) are by definition undetectable. To date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo. Studies on acupuncture that meet scientific standards of experimentation have concluded two things: acupuncture is usually more effective than no treatment or a placebo in pill form, and that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture (superficial needling at non-acupuncture sites), which is often used as a control.[1] This indicates that the effect is either caused by the tendency of extended, invasive procedures to generate more powerful placebo effects than pills or by the general stimulation of afferent nerve endings at the surface of the skin, causing the release of pain relieving biochemical compounds such as endorphins (this can also be done with jalapeno peppers, electricity, and various other form of stimulation). It may also be a combination of these two effects.

The vast majority of research on acupuncture is conducted by researchers in China, and extensive reviews of this research by scientists in other countries consistently find major flaws in the design of the experiments, as well as selective reporting of results and conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from them[2]

Numerous experimental difficulties have prevented the conclusive establishment of a causative relationship (if it exists) between pain relief and the administration of acupuncture. These include the subjective nature of pain measurement and the pervasive influence of psychological factors such as suggestion, confirmation bias, and the distraction of being poked by a needle. Also, the tendency of chronic pain to ebb and flow on its own without any external intervention leads people to falsely perceive that the last measure they took before the pain subsided was the cause of the relief. Despite these concerns, there is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners, and that further research is warranted.

While an article in the American Journal of Acupuncture in 1999 admits that "Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy", some supporters and practitioners of acupuncture contend that since it is based on a philosophical model, its effectiveness cannot be proven or disproved with scientific tests.

[edit] I have never edited an article on wikipedia before and apologize for the apparent breach of protocol

The current article is very misleading and does not reveal the current lack of evidence for acupuncture. It includes numerous studies and theories (from the 50s and 60s) that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific analysis. The writer clearly believes that this technique based on energy fields that can’t be detected is a valid alternative to scientific medicine for people who have real illnesses and need actual care. Only one of the scientific theories he lists is remotely scientifically sound (the one I left in) The rest have absolutely no basis in biology. They simply use scientific terminology to confuse people into thinking that an actual biochemists or microbiologists agree with it. When subject to peer review they quickly breakdown and can be debunked by information in an undergraduate textbook. The references I gave are publications from pubmed related to acupuncture that have the highest degree of credibility among their peers. As a scientist, I understand and applaud your demand for more proof, which is readily available. However, I encourage you to investigate the many claims made by the author of the article and the reason it is suspected of bias. Under criticism he states "TCM theory predates use of the scientific method, and has received various criticisms on that basis" It is not criticized because it is old but because it makes no sense and has no evidence to support it. The thoery was proposed 2000 years ago, when humans had no awareness of the existance of viruses, eukaryotic cells, and bacteria and possessed no real knowledge of what causes disease. Ancient peoples in China, like physicians in the middle ages (who believed that disease was caused by spirits and demons), were unaware of chemistry, biology and physiology, tissue organization, organs and organ functionality, the circulatory and endocrine systems, the function of the brain, the existence of genetics, proteins and countless other discoveries made over centuries and tested repeatedly using logical experimentation and empirical analysis. However, I have resrticted my assertions to those which can be referenced by scientific publications, although there is a very wide spectrum of credibility among scientific papers dealing with the subject of acupuncture. This means that an advocate of TCM can easily quote an extremely biased study funded by the PROC or western organizations that benifit financially from the multibillion dollar buisiness of acupucture. It is irresponsible to promote medical fraud in an online encyclopedia. I would not be surprised if the author of the article is one of the many people who make a lot of money by convincing sick people that this actually works. I am a graduate student in molecular and cell biology and have nothing to gain except the awareness that fewer sick people might be ripped off if the public understands that there is no observable, reality based evidence that acupuncture works. However, I understand the importance of neutrality in an encyclopedia and recognize that even statements that have the highest probability of accuracy, such as the fact that the people who came up with the idea of "qi" had no knowledge of genetics, anatomy, eukaryotic cells, and microscopic organisms(no microscopes), and therefore had very limited awareness of the causes of disease, appear biased in certain contexts. I look forward to your responses and hope you understand that I was not trying to “vandalize” the article in any way, but have a genuine desire to inform people of the most probable explanation for this phenomenon based on the available body of evidence. I also feel the the article on homeopathic medicine is id need of revision=) Sincerely, chris —the preceding comment is by ChrisDas - 07:01, 13 October 2006: Please sign your posts!

Hi, and thanks for dropping by the talk page to chat about the changes you've been making :) Your input is valuable, but generally if they are big or controversial changes to an article, you'll want to have a chat to the other editors on an article's talk page first and reaching a consensus. :) Personally, I have no real input on this topic other than to say thanks for participating in discussion. :) Pursey 03:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Chris

Hi Chris. WP encourages bold edits, so no worries, and welcome aboard. It's great to have more editors who have scientific backgrounds (I happen to as well). However, it's possible to be "too bold", and WP also asks that we collaborate. While your recent edit[6] addresses my and Pursey's concerns in part, it is largely a revert of a previous edit with a minor reorg[7], and I still see POV and VER problems in how it is presented. In general, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion, and once we agree on the basic interpretation of WP's content-guiding policies (as Pursey cited on your user talk page), I'm sure we can hammer out something mutually agreeable and appropriately encyclopedic. It comes down to "saying who says what, and why", and sourcing same.

BTW, if I lapse into WP jargon below, it's not meant to obfuscate; it's just that the shorthand becomes a habit. By "V RS" I mean "verifiable, reliable source" (cf. WP:V and WP:RS).

First, I don't think your reorg of the section on efficacy was a net improvement, for a couple of reasons: (1) Moving the rest of the material from that section to another is unwarranted. All of it presents sig sci POV's on efficacy. I've moved them back together. (2) The lead section ought to include discussion of efficacy and research; see WP:LEAD. (3) On placing the section first, I don't have a strong opinion, but I think a comprehensive lead section followed by history, classical theory, and then the rest flows well.

Second, on material you removed:

I agree that much of the section comprising what was in the section entitled "Scientific theories and mechanisms of action" may be dubious, as you as you stated in your most recent edit summary[8]. Another editor (Coladie) recently added most of it, and I simply haven't set aside the time to look at it closely till now, so it's good you brought it up. In all honesty, I'm not sure what should be done with it. It appears to be quite a baby-bathwater mix of potentially interesting material, possible OR, and fringe, outdated, and plausible material. I certainly agree with your NPOV rewording regarding endorphins. Deleting the rest outright goes too far, but as it stands, there are significant problems with NPOV, VER and OR. For now I think the section should be tagged, and the rest moved to a subsection of talk for further editorial attention. (I've done the same, for similar reasons, with some comments that followed GERAC under "Examples of controlled studies".)

Removal[9] of the sectons entitled "TCM perspective on treatment of disease" and "Indications according to acupuncturists in the West" appears unwarranted. Maybe you did so in haste, given your (imho more justifiable) objection to the material mentioned above. How are these not sig POV's, and what's the matter with the sourcing? Please explain your objections.

You removed the sentence "In practice, EBM does not demand that doctors ignore research outside its "top-tier" criteria [10]." Was that unintentional?

You also removed both an image and POV-check tag, which I assume was unintentional.

Third, on material you added or changed (which I moved to the section entitled "A note on scientific methodology and acupuncture", assuming it represents sig POV's not cited above in that section):

You apparently added NCAHF to the lead section. They're not nearly as notable as the other groups cited. Fine to cite them in body of article, but undue weight (in the sense of poor parallelism) to put them in lead.

In an earlier edit[11], you added a reference from Linde et. al. to the last sentence in the lead re efficacy. Can you elaborate on what that ref says?

You made the following change:

"Scientists ... for most conditions have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not acupuncture is effective."

changed to

"Scientists ... for most conditions have concluded that acupuncture is no more effective than a placebo."

As you know, these statements are not identical. The latter statement (a) requires a higher burden of evidence than the former, and -- probably for that reason -- (b) is not demonstrably a majority scientific POV, per EBM reviews.

You wrote: There is no evidence that acupuncture has any affect on the pathogenesis of viruses and microorganisms, or on human physiology, with the exception of the neurological pathways associated with the nerve cells that were stimulated by them.

I assume you can provide a V RS that says this, so I fact-tagged it. However, asserting this as fact is going too far, given what Cochrane et al say about efficacy (i.e., there is evidence for efficacy, but the mechanism isn't clear). Please use "X says.. " language, per NPOV's framing of "facts about opinions".

Thus, the most promising clinical application of acupuncture is in the area of pain control. - this is OR unless you can cite a V RS. Fact-tagged.

Empirical data on acupuncture, gathered through scientific experiment and analysis, focuses on biochemical and psychological mechanisms because the existence of "qi "and the balance of "yin" and "yang" are by definition undetectable. - Actually, empirical data focuses also on clinically observable outcomes, irrespective of mechanism. The sentence also manages to be both POV and tautological, cf Talk:Vitalism.

To date there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that the procedure has any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo. - According to whom? Evidently not the EBM reviewers cited earlier. What is the threshold for conclusive evidence? Needs NPOV wording and V RS, as does the material that follows (I've seen the "noxious stimulus" argument made elsewhere, I believe on the blog "Confessions of a Quackbuster", whose author I respect; still, I'd like to see a V RS for it.)

Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache: randomized controlled trial, Copyright © 2005, BMJ Publishing Group Ltd - please expand this source, i.e. which publication?

The vast majority of research on acupuncture is conducted by researchers in China, and extensive reviews of this research by scientists in other countries consistently find major flaws in the design of the experiments, as well as selective reporting of results and conclude that no conclusions can be drawn from them - "extensive reviews ... consistently find" is a broad claim, and I've changed the wording to accord with your citation of a single source pending further clarification of what Ernst says and to whom he attributes it. Does your Ernst source really make the criticism about Chinese studies that you are claiming? I'd be surprised if he wholly dismisses them, and categorically, because I recall that some Chinese studies are included in EBM reviews, including the one Ernst coauthored on low back pain[12] (which he mentions here, which your source predates by six years, which suggests it may be outdated for this citation).

Finally, while an article in the American Journal of Acupuncture in 1999 admits that "Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy", some supporters of acupuncture contend that since it is based on a philosophical model, its effectiveness cannot be proven or disproved with scientific tests. The latter assertion needs a source, and framing it in terms of the former citation is POV and (if itself an unsourced formulation) OR.

OK -- I hope you take all of my work here in good faith, Chris, and I certainly extend the same.

best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ActiveDiscuss at Scientific theories and mechanisms of action

I've moved parts of this section to a subpage /scimech for further discussion. (Please note that this is the first time I've used this template on WP, and I apologize if I've used it improperly. I also don't mean to devalue the work of the editors who added the material I've moved, but rather to attract further editorial input that may improve it.)

thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ActiveDiscuss at Examples of controlled studies

Likewise, I've moved parts of this section to a subpage /dblblind for further discussion. Please note the disclaimer above.

thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how long it's appropriate to leave these templates on the page, given the apparent lack of editorial interest... thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efficacious and Placebo

This seems a little contradictory, efficacious means achieiving the desired result, so even if something was a placebo and did what it was intended to, couldn't it be categorized as efficacious? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The snare (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2006.

Apparently "Efficacious" is a term of art and used correctly here.... --Jim Butler(talk) 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For a method to be considered efficacious and meaningful in any medical sense, it would have to make an objectively measurable biological difference above and beyond subjective effects (the placebo effect is primarily a subjective effect caused by expectation). Subjective effects can produce shortlived bodily reactions (example: embarrassment can cause blushing, goose bumps, enlarged pupils, racing pulse, etc.), but have no lasting real effect on any serious illness.
A treatment method that exploits the placebo effect may itself be harmless (like homeopathy), but in real life can have dangerous consequences, because it produces a false sense of security, leading the sufferer to place their trust in a method that has no real chance of changing the course of their disease. This can be a fatal delusion, hence the placebo effect can just as well be called the placebo illusion, which is why it is used in clinical research, where measuring the consequences of beliefs in illusions is vital. One must therefore be very careful how one defines "efficacious," because it can cause the death of patients, while it increases the profits of the unethical practitioner who is exploiting the placebo effect. Definitions have consequences. -- Fyslee 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well-said. Fyslee, do you see any inappropriate usage of the term in the article in its present form, e.g. "Whether acupuncture is efficacious or a placebo has been the subject of ongoing scientific research", etc.?
One caveat: to the extent that subjective effects are important in reducing stress, might they not have lasting and real effects on illnesses of all kinds? Acupuncture is a case in which the boundary between subjective and objective effects (cf. trigger point release) is poorly understood, but patients still rate it highly, and it's quite unlikely to do harm as long as appropriate biomedical approaches are concurrently pursued. best, Jim Butler(talk) 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the statement "Whether acupuncture is efficacious or a placebo has been the subject of ongoing scientific research" is both accurate and written in an NPOV style, so it's good enough.
Stress relief can certainly make it easier to bear the burden of having a serious illness. This gets to the core of the meaning of quackery -- the claims made. If a method makes honest and reasonable claims, then no problem. Let's take massage for example. If a massage therapist (or a physical therapist, like myself....;-) claims that massage can cure cancer, or even improve recovery rates, they are guilty of quackery and deception. If they claim that massage can relieve tense muscles, provide some stress relief, and relieve some forms of musculoskeletal pain, then there is no problem. Claims should be reasonable and backed up by research when possible. When research is lacking or inconclusive, then it's best to stick to the "milder" claims, since "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Normal and uncontroversial claims won't normally raise an eyebrow. -- Fyslee 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed again. (Homeopathy is a case where even "mild" claims of efficacy are weird. If it really does work beyond placebo, I'll be damned if I know how. I remember back in grad school when the whole Benveniste thing went down.) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hi. I have a scientific background with degrees in Biology and Animal Science and am currently in veterinary school. I have had accupuncture done on myself and I have seen it done on dogs, cats, and horses. I truly believe that it works. Most acupuncture points correspond to points on the body with increased nerve endings, etc. Acupuncture is NOT just a bunch of boloney. It really does work. . . although acupuncture does work better for some things than others. . . acupuncture is not a cure for all ailments, and I believe that acupuncture can be incorporated with Western Medicine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eqvet4christ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 November 2006.

[edit] This article is overloaded with anti-acupuncture references, and I will not tolerate it.

(A comment was removed by editor acupuncturist, which in part referred to ashi points) The article calls de qi (the actual crucial electrical connection of the needle to the qi) "historical", and says some patients actually "claim" to experience it. If you are writing about acupuncture and you have not experienced de qi, it is to me like writing about Baseball and never connecting ball with bat! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acupuncturist (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 November 2006.

(1) "Ashi" points are, as you know, tender points. "Ouch" is one loose translation that my professors (who were graduates of med schools in Shanghai, Beijing etc.) used, and it doesn't contradict "that's it" in context, but rather clarifies the idea. See this link, for example: www.acupuncturenewyork.net/ashi.htm. (2) Qi is not defined as electricity. (3) Nothing wrong with citing what studies say; what's important is to explain study design and results. NIH covers this well, explaining caveats about blinding etc. Suggest you have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:VER, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, before lashing out too much at fellow editors who are trying to help make this the best article available online that covers all significant views on the subject. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim you were right I am a Wikipedia Single Purpose Account. Through the use of acupuncture and massage I have helped hundreds if not a thousand patients with "real illnesses" and "real pain" and my empathy goes out to anyone who would read this article and decide based on what they saw that acupuncture is phony. I apologive for lashing out at other users. I am sure there are charlatan practitioners out there, as well as inept acupuncture mimics, but that does not mean editors here should feel obligated to turn away interested average readers who may, as so many have through my practice, finally have some relief. as for the qi not being scientifically defined as being electrical, it depends on who you ask. The rest of the world's research on acupuncture is busy finding physical structures of the meridians, while we in the USA can't even agree on the electrical properties of points even in light of the fact that a fifty dollar machine with a nine volt battery can find them based on electrical resistance. Its easier for naysayers to say its a "philosophical concept" and support it with ancient theories of TCM, that way it simply cannot exist in the "real world". Acupuncturist 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Acu'ist. I wasn't accusing you of bad faith by bringing up WP:SPA, just cautioning againt soliciting multiple SPA edits[13]. I certainly wouldn't want to article to advance a single POV on acupuncture. On qi, the article on that topic covers its subtleties fairly well, and I'd rather incorporate that breadth a bit than POVishly define it as a "current". Rving for now and suggest expanding later. Some may see qi as electrical current (if so, we should source this; measurable resistance alone doesn't suggest it's a current), but it's not even close to the breadth and nuance seen at qi or, e.g., what Bensky and O'Connor say in their translation of the classic Shanghai UTCM text. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
When people look at acupuncture on wiki and they go to theory they are looking for the answer to a question of why do people use needles for treatment. What's the theory?
BALANCING IS FOR CIRCUS CLOWNS AND HAS NO MEANING RELATIVE TO THE THEORETICAL QUESTION OF USING METAL NEEDLES! BALANCING YIN AND YANG IS for a conversation about yin and yang not one about acupuncture theory. Don't you see how demeaning it is to use the term in that segment?
DEADMAN, Al-Khafaji, Baker: point selection methods: local, distal, adjacent, proximal, above/below, front/back, center/extremities, int/ext, pairing, crossing, chain/lock, empirical, combination, alternation but NO BALANCING AT ALL! O'Conner, BENSKY: Moving/Circulating, Benefitting/ reinforcing, Draining, BUT NO BALANCING!
Now about De-qi, ARRIVAL OF QI (by the way i think if you are calling it obtaining the qi you are giving yourself a little too much credit, you may try to "obtain the qi", but in actuality it arrives. Xinnong: quoting Miraculous Pivot... acup therapy does not take effect until the arrival of qi. The description: soreness, numbness or a distending feeling around the needle - things you woul imagine that the PATIENT WOULD FEEL!!!
Again, by the way, why does it have to be "meridian system" why use a French term for Chinese medicine? 'cause a lot of Americans don't like the French? cause its sounds intellectual? what happened to Channels and Collaterals. The network vessels are important and again I suggest that any acup. ignoring them is sharply limiting their ability to resolve chronic complaints.
Now about QI... How nice that you have an are to talk about qi, Even as an acup'st I am not interested in it. FOR ACUPUNCTUR TREATMENT WE ONLY WORK WITH ONE KIND OF QI. MISUNDERSTANDING THIS CAN BRING ABOUT CONFUSION IN THE READERS OF THE ARTICLE THE DAMAGE FROM WHICH WILL BE IRRECONCILABLE! qi is Source, Nourishing, Proctecting, Ancestral, Pectoral, Organic, AND CHANNEL QI... Channel qi "FLOWS THROUGHOUT THE CHANNELS AND COLLATERALS" like a... let's see like a... current. yeah that's it... metal needles, electrical resistance, biological current, huh... I think I am starting to find a way to communicate the Theory of acupuncture (NOT TCM, but just acupuncture) to the article readers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acupuncturist (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 November 2006.
Would it help to have a couple of pentagrams? One showing the five elements (and their ability to selectively create to and destroy) and a pentagram for the organs to show the relationship of the direction whereby they can tonify or subjugate. Have hesitate to suggest this before because I know nothing about this type of therapy.--Aspro 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Pentagrams are for acupuncture students. To they layperson in America they are equated with witchcraft. I am saying that in the early part of the article acupuncture should be defined in simple realistic terms that dont conjure up images of flower children, space cadets, or witches. Acupuncture has gotten enough of a bad image from the time tahat a French doctor went to China for a bit and started training collegues without consideration for the image that would be created by the nomenclature eg. ACUS Needle = RIGID BODY WITh A POINT DESIGNED TO TEAR TISSUE IN ITS PATH - PUNCTURE TO CUT OPEN... No one uses needles anymore, they are filiforms. Puncturing is rare and should not be in the name of the procedure. This articLe cant even decide whether acupuncture is a procedure or a philosophy or a psudoscience or a system. POINTS are not POINTS aT ALL THEY ARE holes, AT LEAST THE ARTICLE GETS THAT RIGHT. iT JUST NEEDS TO BE SIMPLE AT FIRST, THEN EVERYONES KOOKY SLANTS CAN BE ELUCIDATED.Acupuncturist 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a note for people new to Wikipedia; using all caps is considered by many to indicate yelling something and is seen as trying to shove one's opinion on others regardless of arguments. I'm not saying that is going on, but I'm giving a heads up as to how people who do that have been historically treated at Wikipedia. --Fire Star 火星 15:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i'll use my e e cummings voice, then... i am yelling, but i don't want to shove anything on others. historically acupuncturists are a bit passive and the problems i see in this article are due to my collegues not speaking up and allowing acupuncture to be marginalized and disparaged in the public opinion. Acupuncturist 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are these links still needed?

Wikipedia:Dead_external_links/404/a lists these documents as lost and still needed for the Acupuncture article:

  1. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/iceman/evidence/tattoos.html
  2. Acupuncture: Review And Analysis Of Reports On Controlled Clinical Trials, World Health Organization, 2002

However, I can not find any references to either in the article. Can these two links just be stricken out of the link rot list?
Just happened to pass by on link patrol... --Ronja Addams-Moring 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/u/Talk%7EAcupuncture_1d2f.html"